Advertisement

Development of a person-centered conceptual model of perceived fatigability

  • Anna L. KratzEmail author
  • Susan L. Murphy
  • Tiffany J. Braley
  • Neil Basu
  • Shubhangi Kulkarni
  • Jenna Russell
  • Noelle E. Carlozzi
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Perceived fatigability, reflective of changes in fatigue intensity in the context of activity, has emerged as a potentially important clinical outcome and quality of life indicator. Unfortunately, the nature of perceived fatigability is not well characterized. The aim of this study is to define the characteristics of fatigability through the development of a conceptual model informed by input from key stakeholders who experience fatigability, including the general population, individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), and individuals with fibromyalgia (FM).

Methods

Thirteen focus groups were conducted with 101 participants; five groups with n = 44 individuals representing the general population, four groups with n = 26 individuals with MS, and four groups with n = 31 individuals with FM. Focus group data were qualitatively analyzed to identify major themes in the participants’ characterizations of perceived fatigability.

Results

Seven major themes were identified: general fatigability, physical fatigability, mental fatigability, emotional fatigability, moderators of fatigability, proactive and reactive behaviors, and temporal aspects of fatigability. Relative to those in the general sample, FM or MS groups more often described experiencing fatigue as a result of cognitive activity, use of proactive behaviors to manage fatigability, and sensory stimulation as exacerbating fatigability.

Conclusions

Fatigability is the complex and dynamic process of the development of physical, mental, and/or emotional fatigue. Trait- and state-like biological, psychological, social, and environmental moderators contribute to tremendous variability in fatigability (both between and within-person variability). Future research to further characterize fatigability across populations, test treatments for fatigability, and develop new measures of this construct are greatly needed.

Keywords

Fatigue Fatigability Multiple sclerosis Fibromyalgia Aging 

Notes

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R21AG053186; PI: Kratz. Dr. Kratz was supported during manuscript preparation by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number K01AR064275). The U-M Pepper Center, which is funded by the National Institute of Aging (Award Number AG024824), provided assistance with subject recruitment. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_2093_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Lerdal, A., et al. (2005). Fatigue in the general population: A translation and test of the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the fatigue severity scale. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avlund, K., Damsgaard, M. T., & Schroll, M. (2001). Tiredness as determinant of subsequent use of health and social services among nondisabled elderly people. Journal of Aging and Health, 13(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, H., Gurland, B. J., & Maurer, M. S. (2008). Self-reported lack of energy (anergia) among elders in a multiethnic community. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 63(7), 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beutel, M. E., et al. (2004). Age-related complaints in women and their determinants based on a representative community study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 117(2), 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beutel, M. E., et al. (2002). Complaints of the ageing male based on a representative community study. European Urology, 41(1), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liao, S., & Ferrell, B. A. (2000). Fatigue in an older population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(4), 426–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Junghaenel, D. U., et al. (2011). Demographic correlates of fatigue in the US general population: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71(3), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuhrer, R., & Wessely, S. (1995). The epidemiology of fatigue and depression: A French primary-care study. Psychological Medicine, 25(5), 895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bardel, A., et al. (2009). Age-specific symptom prevalence in women 35–64 years old: A population-based study. BMC Public Health, 9, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eldadah, B. A. (2010). Fatigue and fatigability in older adults. PM&R, 2(5), 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kluger, B. M., Krupp, L. B., & Enoka, R. M. (2013). Fatigue and fatigability in neurologic illnesses: Proposal for a unified taxonomy. Neurology, 80(4), 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Enoka, R. M. (1995). Mechanisms of muscle fatigue: Central factors and task dependency. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 5(3), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stokes, M. J., Cooper, R. G., & Edwards, R. H. (1988). Normal muscle strength and fatigability in patients with effort syndromes. BMJ, 297(6655), 1014–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aldughmi, M., Bruce, J., & Siengsukon, C. F. (2017). Relationship between fatigability and perceived fatigue measured using the neurological fatigue index in people with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 19(5), 232–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aldughmi, M., et al. (2016). The relationship between fatigability and sleep quality in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal–Experimental, Translational and Clinical, 2, 2055217316682774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hameau, S., et al. (2017). Adaptations of fatigue and fatigability after a short intensive, combined rehabilitation program in patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harrison, A. M., Nair, R., & Moss-Morris, R. (2017). Operationalising cognitive fatigability in multiple sclerosis: A Gordian knot that can be cut? Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 23(13), 1682–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loy, B. D., et al. (2017). Relationship between perceived fatigue and performance fatigability in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 100, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seamon, B. A., & Harris-Love, M. O. (2016). Clinical assessment of fatigability in multiple sclerosis: A Shift from perception to performance. Frontiers in Neurology, 7, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zijdewind, I., Prak, R. F., & Wolkorte, R. (2016). Fatigue and fatigability in persons with multiple sclerosis. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 44(4), 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2005). The situational fatigue scale: A different approach to measuring fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1357–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glynn, N. W., et al. (2015). The Pittsburgh Fatigability scale for older adults: Development and validation. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63(1), 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krupp, L. B., et al. (1988). Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Archives of Neurology, 45(4), 435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Severijns, D., Van Geel, F., & Feys, P. (2017). Motor fatigability in persons with multiple sclerosis: Relation between different upper limb muscles, and with fatigue and the perceived use of the arm in daily life. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 19, 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mease, P. J., et al. (2008). Identifying the clinical domains of fibromyalgia: Contributions from clinician and patient Delphi exercises. Arthritis Care & Research: Official Journal of the American College of Rheumatology, 59(7), 952–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bennett, R. M., et al. (2007). An internet survey of 2,596 people with fibromyalgia. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 8, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mease, P., et al. (2009). Fibromyalgia fatigue-development of a conceptual model based on qualitative patient interviews. Value in Health, 12(7), A232–A232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    PROMIS. (2013). PROMIS(R) instrument development and validation scientific standards. Retrieved August 20, 2018, from http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf.
  29. 29.
    Morgan, S., & Yoder, L. H. (2012). A concept analysis of person-centered care. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 30(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lines, L. M., Lepore, M., & Wiener, J. M. (2015). Patient-centered, person-centered, and person-directed care: They are not the same. Medical Care, 53(7), 561–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolfe, F., et al. (2016). 2016 revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 46(3), 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualtiative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus group interview: An underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14(4), 411–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    QSR International Pty Ltd. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Averill, J. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Murphy, S. L., & Smith, D. M. (2010). Ecological measurement of fatigue and fatigability in older adults with osteoarthritis. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 65(2), 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murphy, S. L., Kratz, A. L., & Schepens Niemiec, S. L. (2017). Assessing fatigability in the lab and in daily life in older adults with osteoarthritis using perceived, performance, and ecological measures. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 72(1), 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Severijns, D., et al. (2017). The assessment of motor fatigability in persons with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31(5), 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schepens, S. L., Kratz, A. L., & Murphy, S. L. (2012). Fatigability in osteoarthritis: Effects of an activity bout on subsequent symptoms and activity. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 67(10), 1114–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kratz, A. L., Schepens, S. L., & Murphy, S. L. (2013). Effects of cognitive task demands on subsequent symptoms and activity in adults with symptomatic osteoarthritis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(6), 683–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Terracciano, A., et al. (2013). Personality, metabolic rate and aerobic capacity. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tolea, M. I., et al. (2012). Associations between personality traits, physical activity level, and muscle strength. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3), 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tolea, M. I., et al. (2012). Personality and reduced incidence of walking limitation in late life: Findings from the health, aging, and body composition study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(6), 712–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Simonsick, E. M., et al. (2016). Fatigued, but not frail: Perceived fatigability as a marker of impending decline in mobility-intact older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(6), 1287–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fried, L. P., et al. (2001). Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 56(3), M146–M156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Avlund, K., et al. (1996). Item bias in self-reported functional ability among 75-year-old men and women in three Nordic localities. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 24(3), 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tiesinga, L. J., Dassen, T. W., & Halfens, R. J. (1998). DUFS and DEFS: Development, reliability and validity of the Dutch Fatigue Scale and the Dutch Exertion Fatigue Scale. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35(1–2), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hadley, E. C., et al. (2017). Report: NIA workshop on measures of physiologic resiliencies in human aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 72(7), 980–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Humphrey, L., et al. (2010). Fatigue in fibromyalgia: A conceptual model informed by patient interviews. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11, 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hewlett, S., et al. (2011). Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: Time for a conceptual model. Rheumatology, 50(6), 1004–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Norheim, K. B., Jonsson, G., & Omdal, R. (2011). Biological mechanisms of chronic fatigue. Rheumatology, 50(6), 1009–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Filippi, M., et al. (2002). Functional magnetic resonance imaging correlates of fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage, 15(3), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cook, D. B., et al. (2007). Functional neuroimaging correlates of mental fatigue induced by cognition among chronic fatigue syndrome patients and controls. Neuroimage, 36(1), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Queiroz, L. P. (2013). Worldwide epidemiology of fibromyalgia. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 17(8), 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ramagopalan, S. V., et al. (2010). Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis and clinical phenotype. European Journal of Neurology, 17(4), 634–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Orton, S. M., et al. (2006). Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in Canada: A longitudinal study. The Lancet Neurology, 5(11), 932–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of Michigan; VA Ann Arbor Health Care System GRECCAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations